Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So despite this having been stated again & again & again, and maybe for the benefit of newcomers to the thread, it's worth asking L-E again which "scientific finding of AGW" is he asserting there is "well-organized opposition" to?

How about this one? Or here?

“People ask me if I believe in global warming. I tell them, ‘No, I don’t,’ because belief is faith; faith is the evidence of things not seen. Science is evidence of things seen.”

—Katharine Hayhoe, climatologist and evangelical Christian[1]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Who but a knowledgeable scientist could really know and be able to have a reasonable view on the subject? It's beyond most people's basic knowledge base, including mine.

True enough, but it also seems to be beyond most scientists' basic knowledge base. Too many variables that are not yet well understood perhaps. The level of scientific uncertainty thus seems to lend itself to a lot of propaganda and distortion, often driven by a political agenda.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Pretty interesting that all the scientific work done if the many fields other than Climate Change appear to be accepted by you without quarrel, but within this field you seem to have a limitless appetite to scrap over any little imagined thing you can possible think of, real or imagined. Makes one wonder if you have some sort of an ulterior motive, rather than just promoting good scientific procedures?

Where on earth did you get that idea?
I reject bad science whatever the field. It is just that climate science is so rife with it and this thread is about climate.

If you want to see me get really hot under the collar start a separate thread on bad science involving un-reproducible results and the abuse of statistics in medicine and psychology.

All these climate studies have the same failing. They assume a result and then look for evidence to support it - which is the antithesis of real science.

"The focus of science is bipolar – being creative and being cruel. Being creative in coming up with an idea about how things might work,
and being cruel in coming up with tests which might show that the idea is wrong. The explanatory power of an idea is proportional to the severity of the tests it has survived."

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by StuM

If you want to see me get really hot under the collar start a separate thread on bad science involving un-reproducible results and the abuse of statistics in medicine and psychology.

I]

I can do that.. and you already marked me for 'Bad Science

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

True enough, but it also seems to be beyond most scientists' basic knowledge base. Too many variables that are not yet well understood perhaps. The level of scientific uncertainty thus seems to lend itself to a lot of propaganda and distortion, often driven by a political agenda.

You are truly a gifted individual. Not only can you find the flaws in the work of experts in a field that you are not trained in, you can also remotely detect their overall competence.

Gotta be a way to make a buck or two from this amazing ability.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by boatman61

That's pretty different from this guys calculations... and that just the Petroleum
In 2014, the United States consumed a total of 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.11 million barrels per day.2 This total includes about 0.34 billion barrels of biofuels.

Ninety eight thousand nine hundred seventy six trillion,eight thousand
nine hundred forty five billion,nine hundred ninety eight million gallons,
give or take a few trillion. It will be safer to take instead of give. That's how much.

You need to check your maths. To get 8,976 trillion at 6.97 billion per year would take over a million years

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by StuM

You need to check your maths. To get 8,976 trillion at 6.97 billion per year would take over a million years

Not my maths mate.. I'm just jumping onto CF's latest trend.. 'WIKI'

[transmitterdan]

The first post suggested we can use technology to solve this problem. How many posters on this thread believe we should immediately task our best scientists and engineers to create cheap, safe and abundant non-carbon power sources? I have not heard one AGW believer say that we should. For me that is a huge signal that the fundamental issue is not really about AGW.

[sailorboy1]

Today was a nice day for a cold day in February but still cold, please type some more and warm it up some.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You are truly a gifted individual. Not only can you find the flaws in the work of experts in a field that you are not trained in, you can also remotely detect their overall competence.

Gotta be a way to make a buck or two from this amazing ability.

So you are now denying that there exists a scientific dispute amongst climatologists about how much the Earth may be warming, the accuracy of the modeling, the potential impacts . . . ? Can you understand why this is a different conclusion than "believing" in one theory over another? You really don't have to be gifted or trained in a particular field to simply follow a thread on a sailing forum and maybe apply a bit of logic & reason. Once again, I'm not saying your particular beliefs are "wrong," only that you are myopic in not being able to acknowledge that there are others shared by scientists & non-scientists alike. My only "belief" is that the science is not as certain as you think it is.

You tire & bore me. Do we perhaps need a larger spoon for you to feed from?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The first post suggested we can use technology to solve this problem. How many posters on this thread believe we should immediately task our best scientists and engineers to create cheap, safe and abundant non-carbon power sources? I have not heard one AGW believer say that we should. For me that is a huge signal that the fundamental issue is not really about AGW.

According to the Politicians they have... though I must confess their policy actions don not reflect the declarations..

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Ninety eight thousand nine hundred seventy six trillion,eight thousand
nine hundred forty five billion,nine hundred ninety eight million gallons,
give or take a few trillion.

98,976 trillion; 8,945 billion; 998 billion gallons...

What does that even mean?

Your post sez the US uses about 19 million barrels a day, which is about 800 million gallons per day (42 US gallons per barrel)...

...which if rounded to 1000 million (a billion) gallons per day, would mean it would take 1000 days to burn through a trillion gallons...about 3 years...

...and 3 times 98,976 years to burn through the amount you listed as having been sourced in wiki...

...or about 300,000 years...

wiki entries are made by average Joe knuckle draggers who have been known to make some egregious mistakes and outrageous claims, and should be viewed skeptically...

Just saying'...

[Ribbit]

Oooooo look at all the apples rolling around! Must be a pile of upset apple carts somewhere.

New study confirms no warming.

*Guess who co-authored it?

Now Even Michael Mann Admits The 'Pause' In Global Warming Is Real; Throws Allies To Wolves - Breitbart

This confirms the so called 'skeptics' have been right all along.

*hint: His last name is Mann, and his first name is Michael.

I know the 'Climate Change' fanatics need all the help they can get.

Have you got it yet?

PS The very first dead giveaway that CO2 was no problem (for those incapable of doing joined up thinking anyway), was the failure to immediately ban catalytic converters.

Plus second, given the dramatic increase in fuel consumption that it causes, Ethanol should have been immediately banned from adding to petroleum based fuels (e.g. 15% ethanol content decreases fuel economy by around 30%, 5% content by about 10%, then add in all the wasted energy used growing crops and turning them into ethanol).

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

According to the Politicians they have... though I must confess their policy actions don not reflect the declarations..

The US government has all but abandoned efforts to create cheap safe non-carbon electricity in favor of expensive and polluting "green" solutions. A few governments are trying but the wealthiest governments are more interested in how to use AGW as a way to shift political power and reduce individual freedoms and rights.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by fryewe

98,976 trillion; 8,945 billion; 998 billion gallons...

What does that even mean?

Your post sez the US uses about 19 million barrels a day, which is about 800 million gallons per day (42 US gallons per barrel)...

...which if rounded to 1000 million (a billion) gallons per day, would mean it would take 1000 days to burn through a trillion gallons...about 3 years...

...and 3 times 98,976 years to burn through the amount you listed as having been sourced in wiki...

...or about 300,000 years...

wiki entries are made by average Joe knuckle draggers who have been known to make some egregious mistakes and outrageous claims, and should be viewed skeptically...

Just saying'...

Mate.. I'm a Brit.. we regard anything less than 35 mpg as a Gas Guzzler.. having ridden in taxi's in New York and NJ which have econo meters the best mpg I saw was 9... and that was downhill. the average was 7mpg.. so I did not blink at what I read..

U.S. oil demand reversed course in dramatic fashion in 2013, as the nation's growth in crude consumption outpaced perennial leader China for the first time since 1999, according to oil company BP's annual compendium of world energy statistics.

The U.S. increase follows two years of declines, and dampens hopes that the world's largest oil guzzler was permanently reining in its appetite for crude. The nation's oil use rose by 400,000 barrels per day to a daily draw of 18.9 million barrels; China's oil consumption grew by 390,000 barrels a day, to 10.8 million barrels a day, according to the BP figures released last month.

"Are these data points a harbinger of things to come or just an aberration?" asked Christof Rühl, group chief economist at BP. "Too early to tell is the appropriate response."

Rühl said the rise in U.S. oil demand stemmed from industrial users of petrochemicals and other oil byproducts, a trend triggered more by a flood of cheap domestic oil supplies than by overall economic growth.

You were saying..??